Professional Conduct notice / JO

June 2026: Joanne Owens, Membership Number 00722514, Registrant ID 186024

Attendees:

1. The Member Joanne Owens attended and was supported by […] of […].

2. The Complainant […] attended and was unsupported.

Introduction:

3. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under Section 5 of BACP's Professional Conduct Procedure.
Background:

4. This case concerns a Member who conducted a number of counselling sessions at school with Child A and Child B (who were twin brother and sister). At the time they were aged 14. After those sessions they spoke to their mother about the sessions who has subsequently complained on behalf of her children about a number of aspects of what was said by the Member at those sessions.

During sessions with both children (both of whom were at the time in receipt of Learning Support Assistance) it is alleged that the Member, when explaining the concept of confidentiality to the children, failed to adequately explain to them that whilst she was professionally required to keep the content of the sessions confidential, they could discuss the sessions with other people if they so wished.

It is also alleged that during a session with Child A, the Member disclosed personal information concerning the earlier […] and […] to Child A when there was no clinical justification to do so.

It is also alleged that during sessions with Child A, the Member made various inappropriate comments to Child A which included reference to helping him have contact with his brother (with whom he was not in touch); reference to him being able to ‘run away’ to see his brother; reference to the Complainant having ‘broken the bond’ between him and his brother by not taking on his brother too; reference to it being ‘ok’ for him to steal money and reference to him not needing his ADHD medication.

Preliminary Matters

5. At the start of the hearing, The Panel considered an application for the submission of late evidence by the Member of three further testimonials put forward by colleagues in her support. They had not been ready for the Member to submit until a couple of days after the Member’s deadline for submitting her evidence. After consideration of the application with reference to the Professional Conduct Procedure and having considered Protocol 4 the Panel decided to admit the additional testimonials in evidence on the basis that their content was relevant and in all circumstances admission of the documents was fair to both parties. The documents were relevant to the Member’s character, and the Complainant did not object to their admission.

The Allegations

6. The Allegations made against the Member are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member did not make clear to Child A and/or Child B that the confidentiality of sessions did not prevent them from disclosing details of discussions if they wished to do so.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 31b (We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to: communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context).

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member disclosed personal information to Child A when that was not clinically justified.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Associations Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 33a (We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: a) these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client).

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member made inappropriate comments in sessions with Child A in that she said words to the effect that:
a) she would get the family into court and get him contact with his brother; and/or

b) ‘you could run away, and see your brother’; and/or

c) the Complainant ‘broke the bond up’ by not taking all three children; and/or

d) it was ok to steal money; and/or

e) he did not need ADHD medication.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particularly by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Associations Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 27b (Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: demonstrates knowledge and skills about ways of working that are appropriate to the young person’s development and how relationships are formed) and/or (in relation to allegation 3.1 e only) 13 (We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better. When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection).

Admissions:

7. Following the reading of the allegations the Panel Chair asked the Member whether they admit any of the allegations.

8. The Member informed the Panel that they admitted none of the allegations.

Evidence

Witness Evidence

9. The Member gave evidence.

10. The Complainant also gave evidence.

Documentary Evidence

11. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included but was not limited to:

12.
i) The Complainant’s Complaints Form
ii) The Complainant’s Formal Complaint Statement dated February [year 1]
iii) […] Response to Complaint dated March [year1]
iv) The Member’s Preliminary Response
v) Various adult and child testimonials in support of the Member
vi) Further information from the Complainant dated December [year 1]
vii) The Investigation and Assessment Committee Summary Decision Document dated February [year 2] following IAC meeting on February [year 2]
viii) The Member’s Formal Response to the Allegations.

Facts

The Panel’s Approach to Facts

13. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel has borne in mind that findings should be made on the balance of probabilities, or whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred.

Findings

Allegation 1.1 - Proved

14. The Panel concluded that the confidentiality contracting was the same with Child A and Child B and this was not completed satisfactorily. The Member, in evidence, made no reference to her asking the children what their understanding was of confidentiality. The Member was unable to explain clearly to the Panel her process for explaining confidentiality to young clients. It was clear to the Panel that The Member did not check that the children understood confidentiality in an age-appropriate way. The Member confirmed that the written agreement did not mention that the confidentiality did not apply to them nor was she explicit that the confidentiality did not apply to them. She only referred to the confidentiality obligations on her. She was unable in evidence to recollect the detail of any such conversation with the children, and this confirmed to the Panel that it was more likely than not that she had no such conversation with Child A or Child B.

Allegation 1.2 – Proved

15. In relation to the proved factual allegation 1.1 the Panel concluded, as alleged in allegation 1.2 that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of the Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the counselling professions 2018:

31b (We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to: communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context).
In summary, it follows from the Panel’s factual findings in relation to allegation 1.1 that the Member failed to give careful consideration to communicating the contractual arrangements with them. She failed to take account of their age and background and failed to ensure that the confidentiality element of the contract between them was easily understood or appropriate to their context.

Allegation 2.1 - Proved

16. The Member agreed in evidence that she had said to Child A during a session that earlier in her life […]. She did not therefore dispute that she had disclosed such tragic personal information to Child A. The Member argued that such a conversation with Child A was justified as it was clear that he wanted to talk to her about something other than his vaping. The Panel however concluded that the content of the conversation was not clinically justified particularly given the Member did not at that time know Child A’s difficult background. The Panel recognised that such self-disclosure may sometimes be justified but concluded that the traumatic nature of this personal disclosure was inappropriate, particularly as it took place early in the therapeutic relationship and may have placed a lot of pressure on a young person’s shoulders whose personal history the Member did not know. The Member was also unaware of the relevance of men in Child A’s life and so had no idea how the information may have impacted him.

Allegation 2.2 - Proved

17. The Panel concluded, as alleged in allegation 2.2, that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of the Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the counselling professions 2018:

33a (We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: a) these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client).
In summary, it follows from the Panel’s factual findings in relation to allegation 2.1 that the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries with Child A. What she said did not benefit the child and was inconsistent with the requirement to work together with the client in the client’s best interests.

Allegation 3.1 – Proved in part

18. The Panel found factual allegation 3.1 (a) proved.

The Panel were satisfied on all the evidence that this was said. It was an inappropriate comment as the Member could make no such promises to Client A without knowing the full background. The Member wrongly implied to Child A that she had the power to enable contact between Child A and his brother when she had no authority or responsibility to do so. This could have given him false hope when it was appropriate that she remained neutral. The Member gave Child A the impression that she would progress the issue for him and that she could be his advocate in relation to it. That was, in the Panel’s view inappropriate.

19. The Panel found factual allegation 3.1 (b) not proved.

The Panel concluded that there was no direct and reliable evidence available that such words were used by the Member, who also denied that she used such words. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that such words were not used and that Child A misinterpreted the context of what may have been said in this regard when speaking to the Complainant about the session.

20. The Panel found factual allegation 3.1 (c) proved.

The Panel noted in relation to this factual allegation that the Member stated that she quite possibly said words to this effect to Child A but the context in which they were said was to empathise with the child and was not a criticism of the Complainant. The Panel however concluded that the use of words to this effect with Child A on this issue was inappropriate as it did not take account of the family background or how Child A might perceive the comment and make use of it.

21. The Panel found factual allegation 3.1 (d) not proved.

The Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that the Member did not say “it’s ok to steal” and that it is more likely than not that Child A misinterpreted her words. The Panel concluded that it was likely that they had a conversation about the stealing and that the Member did not chastise him for it, but the Panel concluded that it was unlikely that the Member actually suggested that it was “ok to steal”.

22. The Panel found factual allegation 3.1 (e) not proved.

The Panel noted that the Member denied using these words. The Panel concluded on the evidence that it was more likely than not that the Member and Child A discussed ADHD but that the Member did not discuss his medication with him.

Allegation 3.2 – Proved in part

23. The Panel concluded, as alleged in allegation 3.2, that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of the Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the counselling professions 2018:

27b (Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: demonstrates knowledge and skills about ways of working that are appropriate to the young person’s development and how relationships are formed).

In summary, it follows from the Panel’s factual findings in relation to allegations 3.1 (a) and (c), that the Member, in saying such things to Child A without having an understanding of his background, failed to demonstrate skills in ways of working that were appropriate to Child A as a young person. The Member failed to consider the impact of her interventions given the specific circumstances of Child A’s complex family background.

Decision

24. The Panel concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: Paragraphs 31b, 33a and 27b.

Sanction

25. The Panel reconvened on 15th April 2026 to consider sanction.

26. The decision as to the appropriate sanction to impose, if any, is a matter for this Panel exercising its own judgment. In reaching its decision, the Panel has had regard to the Member's written evidence and submissions and has taken account of Protocol 14 of the PCP and the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.

27. Paragraph 5.12 of the PCP states that the Panel may impose one or more of the following sanctions where a case is allocated to the Practice Review Process and one or more of the allegations is found proved:

i. A requirement to send a written apology to a relevant recipient of therapeutic services provided by the Member [whether or not that recipient is the Complainant] by a specific date;

ii. A requirement to demonstrate specific change/improvement in practice by a specific date;

iii. A requirement to undertake specific training by a specific date;

28. Protocol 14 of the PCP states that in deciding whether a sanction is appropriate and proportionate, the Panel will decide which factors to consider and how much weight to attach to them. The Panel noted that the Member had apologised for the behaviour which led to the complaint and demonstrated some insight. However, it was not satisfied that the steps she had taken addressed the deficiencies identified.

29. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, but to protect members of the public and the wider public interest, although it may have a punitive effect.

30. Throughout its deliberations, the Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Member’s interests with the public interest.

31. The Panel took into consideration the Member’s sanction submissions. Having done so, it concluded that no sanction was required in relation to the failings relating to confidentiality and making inappropriate promises as the Member had demonstrated sufficient remediation in those regards. However, the Panel agreed that she had not demonstrated sufficient remediation in relation to her use of self-disclosure and that it was necessary and proportionate to impose a requirement for the Member to provide further submissions in the form of a statement demonstrating improvement in practice focused on self-disclosure. It considered whether it was appropriate to require the Member to write a letter of apology, but as it could only direct such a letter be written to the recipient of the therapeutic services (i.e. the complainant’s children), it decided in this case a letter of apology was inappropriate.

32. The Panel decided that it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the Member to provide the BACP with the following within 6 weeks of the date of this letter:

1. A personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member’s practice that:

a. reflects on what went wrong in this case in terms of her use of self-disclosure (including her personal traumatic experiences), gives insight into what happened and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong;

b. recognises the impact of her disclosures on the clients and the reputation of the counselling professions;

c. details her rationale for why, when and with whom she uses self-disclosure; what is her process for assessing the appropriateness of a self-disclosure before making one, including the possible impact on the client and herself?

d. details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)